Both of these Trinity Mirror papers are part of a division that is losing money. So the editors are encouraging people to take part in the debate about what should happen.

One favoured plan - though no decisions have been taken - is to turn the morning Post into a weekly and switch the Mail, now an evening, to overnight printing and therefore a morning publication. Dyson refers to the Mail's current status as a "live" paper (ie, one printed on the day it is read).

Naturally, that use of "live" has totally skewed the responses, some 41 of which have been listed as I write. He has therefore obtained a predictable result. What is heartening is that almost all of them appear sympathetic to the plight of the Mail/Post, and several of them are constructive.

(By the way, the overwhelming majority do not use pseudonyms, though the contribution signed Ex-staffer was particularly informative and thoughtful, and another by A worried staff member probably conveyed the majority view of the journalists).

Before I take issue with Dyson, here is one example of a reader's viewpoint plus those of four politicians...

David Bailey: "The Mail has two choices - 'live' or 'dead'. Keep it live. If the Post goes weekly, which I welcome as a way of preserving and developing a quality business paper, that leaves an especially important role for the live local daily paper...

"The key issue is how advertising revenues can be grown to pay for such a high-quality, daily, live paper. Here the public sector has a key role to play - the council for example could easily advertise in local papers and support a key pillar of our democracy rather than spend money printing a free rag that comes through our doors advertising jobs."

Richard Burden , Labour MP for Labour Birmingham Northfield: "A city as important as Birmingham needs a daily paper. And it needs one that reports today's news, not just yesterday's. That is why the Mail should stay live.

"But willing the ends also requires us to will the means. David Bailey is right about the importance of advertising income to papers like the Mail and aboout the role which the public sector can play. Birmingham city council should indeed look at advertising its jobs more extensively in the Mail rather than spending so much on its promotional Forward free sheet. By helping to secure the future of the Mail, the council would be backing Birmingham.

"Keeping the Mail live also requires commitment from Trinity Mirror. I urge them to make that commitment."

John Hemming, Lib Dem MP for Birmingham Yardley: "It would clearly be a commercial mistake to take the Birmingham Mail overnight as it would then lose one of its marketing advantages. It is important to take the actions to maintain the history of the Birmingham Evening Mail, but this step would not be one likely to achieve that. Even if in the short term there are financial advantages, the long term outcome would be counter-productive."

Siôn Simon, Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington and minister for creative industries: "I have ministerial responsibility for publishing and news. As such, it wouldn't normally be the done thing for me to comment on this kind of question.

"As a Birmingham MP, though, and as a Brummie and as a consumer, I feel that I have a right to express a view. In which latter capacity - and not my ministerial one - it almost goes without saying that I support the general wish to keep the Mail as an evening paper for the city.

"It is a part of our cultural heritage which it would be a great shame to lose. I share the general hope that Trinity Mirror bosses can find the needed savings elsewhere. Whatever happens, though - whether the paper remains an evening or becomes a morning one - it seems to me that redoubled investment in the online platform will be crucial to its future success."

Andrew Mitchell, Tory MP for Sutton Coldfield and shadow minister for international development: "Local newspapers such as the Mail allow people to stay connected with their communities and give them a voice at a time when they may otherwise not be heard.

"And I think that any moves to turn the Mail from a 'live' newspaper into an 'overnight' newspaper would have a detrimental effect on that, especially in a world where people want their news "here and now". The Mail is a part of our heritage and we must do all that we can to protect it."

OK, we might expect that from politicians. But their views and those of other commenters are virtually the same. What did Dyson expect? He primed them to dislike anything that is not "live".

As the first person to comment, Mike Olley, noted: "The question do you want the Bham Mail as a live paper or an overnight is a bit like asking do you want a stale cream cake or a fresh one."

I quite understand Dyson's reluctance to make the switch, but I think he is wrong. He is one of the chiefs at one of the most vibrant online offices in British regional papers. He knows that "live" really means a newspaper website while a newsprint paper is old by the time it leaves the presses.

He also understands the way in which the two platforms - print and online - are complementary. So I am surprised that he thinks a couple of hours difference in the publishing of the print edition is really so crucial.

Indeed, I wonder whether it was wise to go public on the matter. Should he be obliged to run an overnight paper, his audience will now regard it as a second-rate offering. He has alerted readers to a problem that the vast majority of them would never have known existed.

That said, who would like to be in his position right now? He has soldiered on through cuts and more cuts. His sincerity shines through. He is passionate about journalism, about his paper and about Birmingham. It would be churlish to be overly critical of his efforts.

Sign up for the Guardian Today

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.